From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] KVM: x86: lapic: Clean up find_highest_vector() and
 count_vectors()
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:51:27 +0300
Message-ID: <20120905095126.GA10531@redhat.com>
References: <20120830101033.GA19622@redhat.com>
 <20120830192439.3e088595.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
 <20120830104458.GA19997@redhat.com>
 <20120830213019.82a822da.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
 <20120830132131.GB21132@redhat.com>
 <20120831010956.000856ead3c6f96dbe2bec46@gmail.com>
 <20120830164923.GA22024@redhat.com>
 <20120905173031.59581bb9.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
 <20120905092649.GD10326@redhat.com>
 <20120905184026.9aeddbc1.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, avi@redhat.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37283 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752771Ab2IEJuH (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 Sep 2012 05:50:07 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120905184026.9aeddbc1.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:40:26PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:26:49 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > It's not guaranteed if another thread can modify the bitmap.
> > Is this the case here? If yes we need at least ACCESS_ONCE.
> 
> In this patch, using the wrapper function to read out a register
> value forces compilers not to do bad things.

It's not robust. Compiler is free to optimize it out, and it
frequently does that.

> But I agree that it is not a good API.
> 
> I would like to use fls() rather than ACCESS_ONCE if it's
> really needed.

Sure, makes sense.

> > > Anyway, I'm now thinking that we do not care about such
> > > things here, and can just follow your advice, yes?
> > 
> > Unless you see an issue with it ...
> 
> Although I read the code, I'm not sure.
> 
> But this code is apparently not so critical for performance
> that we can simply use fls().

Yes. I guess if it becomes critical we'll need to add a cache anyway.

> If I can remove likely() and use proper macros, that's enough
> for me.

Me too.

> Thanks,
> 	Takuya